tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX November 28, 2010 9:00am-10:00am EST
that's going to last through until wednesday. it warms up on tuesday to 60 degrees. but we're also talking a chance of some localized flooding as a possibility. and especially in parts of virginia and west virginia. so keep the umbrella handy. >> rain and golf, two terms that doesn't go together. stay tuned for fox news sunday and join us back here tonight >> chris: i'm chris wallace, and this is "fox news sunday". showdown with north korea. how will washington handle the latest crisis? and how should the u.s. bring terror detainees to justice? we'll get the latest on foreign and domestic flash points from two leading senators. republicans lindsey graham, and democrat claire mccaskill. then, the president talks turkey this week with congressional leaders of both parties. we'll ask our sunday group if compromises are possible on the bush tax cuts and the new
star treaty. and our power player of the week. how about this for a christmas present? all right now on "fox news sunday". hello again, from fox news in washington. we are headed into a big week here in the nation's capital, the growing confrontation in north korea, presidential summit with the new congressional leaders and the debt commission finishes its work. joining us to discuss it all are two key senators. from his home state of south carolina, republican lindsey graham. from her home state of missouri, democrat claire mccaskill. senators, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: start with korea. u.s. and south korea, again, the naval exercise in the yellow sea ignoring protest from u.s. and china. you're members of the senate arms services committee. how should the u.s. deal with the growing threat of north
korea, from north korea? how should we respond to china's new call for emergency talks? senator graham, why don't you start? >> number one, you go forward with the exercises. you don't flinch. this is a very unstable regime who stays in power through fear and intimidation. there will come a day where the people in north korea are so frustrated, they will act. what i worry about is south korea. i worry about the democracy that we support in south korea. how much more will they take? china has a chance to change the feature of the korean peninsula. i'm looking at china to step up their game against north korea and try to bring them in the fold of a peaceful nation. i think we should push china hard and keep the sanctions on north korea. >> chris: senator mccaskill, really, the same questions to you. how should we deal with north korea? china plays this game where they say owe, let's have the talks but they never really put any pressure on north korea. is it time to give up,
senator mccaskill, on china ever restraining the regime in pyongyang? >> no, i don't think so. china borders on this country and i think china calling for resuming of the six party talks is important. typically, we've been wanting six party talks and china has not been as enthusiastic, so i think it's a good sign. i agree with lindsey. we need to continue exercises and take a strong stand. this is brazen and belligerent and all the people in the six party talks need to take a stand, including russia which is why the start treaty is important. >> chris: that brings me to the next subject. wikileaks is expected to dump state department cables in
the next 24 hours. senator graham, there is speculation that among the classified documents that are going to be released, embarrassing things about the russian leaders. two questions. what do you make of the latest wikileaks document dump? and secondly, what impact could, if it does have the information about the russians and the arms control negotiation, what impact could vit on ratification of the start treaty? >> leaking material is deplorable. i agree with the pentagon assessment that people at wikileaks could have blood on their hands. how they start enegotiations, i don't know. but i know it would be good for the united states and russia to enter into the start treaty if it's a good treaty. the question for me are we sure, absolutely certain we can see missile development apart from the start treat i? and it's my belief you can't allow the start treaty to
interfere with the missile defense of this nation. we are at risk here from iran, north korea and other actors. i have don't know what the cables may say, but it's just we're at war. the world is getting dangerous by the day. people who do this are low on the food chain as far as i'm concerned. if you can prosecute them, let's try. >> talk about the missile defense. yes, there is language in the preamble, non-binding. but the administration says that doesn't in any way bind the u.s. you had all these republican wise men like henry kissinger and former secretary of state baker come and say they think start is important. why doesn't that persuade you? >> john coller is a wise man. he said the preamble of the start treaty negotiated with the russians indicates that the russians could withdrawal from the treaty if we develop four stage of missile defense. a simple question: are the russians looking at the preamble as a provision that
prevents us from developing strategic missile defense systems? if it's going to be interpreted by the russians that way, i need to know before i vote. if the russians say that they will withdraw from the treaty, develop strategic missile development systems, i need to know that. if it doesn't say, that we're closer to the treaty enacted. >> chris: senator mccaskill, two questions. one about the wikileaks dump and secondly about the new start treaty? >> lindsey is right. the people leaking the documents need to do a gut check about their patriotism. i think they are enjoying the attention they are getting but it comes at a high price in terms of protecting our men and women in uniform and i hope that we can figure out where this is coming from and go after them with the force of law. the second thing about the start treaty, this is amazing
to me. lindsey graham is a responsible senator who doesn't play the game but there are games being played with the start treaty and it's about politics and trying to damage the president of the united states. this is a moment we need to set that aside and look at what this is. this is a treaty supported by the military. this is a treaty that is supported by the allies. this is a treaty that is supported by secretaries of state from both president bushes, henry kissinger, jim baker, colin powell, and every expert in the world to keep our nation safe from the strategic nuclear weapons. we've now gone months without any verification of loose nukes. look at dick luger who i think insfed of playing politics and hiding behind the skirt of jon kyl, i hope the republicans look at luger the ranking member of the foreign relation committee who said unequivocally we're willing to do the start treaty and look at what is
going on in the world now. with north korea, with iran. our supply line to our men and women in afghanistan, this treaty is important, because our relationship with russia is important so we can move supplies to our men and women in afghanistan. i just think it's time for -- >> chris: real quickly, senator. [ overtalk ] >> bipartisan way. >> chris: real quickly and go to another subject. >> here is the question. does the preamble to start treaty allow russians to opt out if we develop four stages of missile defense as the pentagon said we want to do? >> absolutely not. preamble is not binding. everybody knows it's not binding. posturing going on around the treaty. >> the russians say -- >> first of all, first of all we absolutely went to nato after the treaty had been inked and all of our allies signed the agreement to continue with missile defense. i can't find anybody, i can't
find anybody in any document anywhere that is saying that somehow the preamble has any impact. we are moving ahead with the missile defense. >> chris: with all due respect -- [ overtalk ] guys, if i can move on to another subject because i know this is something you want to talk about, terror detainees and how we handle them. senator graham, we had secretary of state clinton on "fox news sunday" last week and despite the alleged coconspirator, he's now been convicted on one count but he was acquitted on all the other 284 counts. despite that, here is what secretary clinton said last week about the handling of terror detainees in the federal civilian trials. let's watch. >> when you look at the success record of civilian courts of convicting, sentencing, detaining and maximum security prisons, by
the civilian court, it surpasses what has been accomplished in the military commission. >> chris: what do you make of her argument? are you going to take action -- i know you have an amendment out there. are you going to take action to block trials especially of the 9/11 coconspirators? >> i believe in all of the above approach to terrorism trial. place for article iii civilian court in some cases like the christmas day bomber, a guy caught fresh off the plane, low-level al-qaeda operative. i will do everything in my power to make sure khalid sheikh mohammed and coconspirators of 9/11 who attacked the country nine years ago never see civilian court. it's a big mistake to take someone you held under law of war as an enemy combatant for six or seven years and then put them in civilian court. disaster waiting to happen. i believe i got votes to block it. i don't think khalid sheikh
mohammed will ever get congressional approval to see civilian court. he should be tried at guantanamo bay, tried now. he was ready to plead guilty before the obama administration stopped the trial. we should have him in a military commission trial beginning monday and get the case behind us. >> chris: senator mccaskill, at various points you support closing guantanamo and moving all the prisons from guantanamo to u.s. prisons in the wake of the ghalani verdict. in the wake of what you heard from senator graham, isn't that idea dead? s>> we both spent time as prosecutors and he's right, all of the above should be available. each case should be dictated by the facts, evidence and circumstances. i agree the high operative of 9/11, the trials should be in a military setting. that doesn't mean that the civilian court shouldn't be
available as he indicated in some instances. this should be done on a case-by-case basis and senator graham has done yeoman's work to move to upgrading military commission trials and work in a reasonable way to make sure. here is what the president, i know, is most concerned about. making sure that none of these terrorists ever see the light of day. >> chris: let's move on to another big subject. this is going to be quite a week in washington. your senate arms services committee is going to hold a series of hearings this week on the question of whether or not to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." senator, mccaskill, the pentagon will formerly release at your hearings this study that reportedly says most military troops do not object to repeal of the policy. yet senator graham and senator mccain want another study. are they in the process of moving the goal line? >> i don't know. i do know this.
i know that gay members of the military served for decades. there hasn't been a problem with our military being the finest in the world. the question is can they serve with integrity? i think the military is the kind of organization that wants to make sure everyone can serve with integrity. i'm looking forward to seeing the study. i'm looking forward to seeing the results of the study. i think we should move forward to make sure any person who stands up and says i'm willing to die for our country can do so with honor. >> chris: senator graham, the pentagon has been studying this issue for months. the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs both say they favor repeal. why isn't that enough? >> well, there are service chiefs that object to repeal, particularly, the marine corps. the question asked of the military members is how would you implement "don't ask, don't tell" once it's repealed? they didn't ask the question should it be repealed. this is a political promise made by senator obama when he was running for president.
there is no ground swell of opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" coming from the military. this is all politics. i don't believe there is near the vote to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" on the republican side. the united and the lame duck and the study i'd look for is asking military members should it be repealed not how to implement it once you as politicians decide to repeal it. in a lame duck setting, "don't ask, don't tell" is not going anywhere. >> chris: let's turn to domestic politics. the president is going to be meeting with congressional leaders of both parties on tuesday at the white house. this is the first meeting since the midterm elections. they will discuss a number of issues. let's go through a few of them. senator mccaskill would you support temporary extension of several years for the bush tax cut for middle class and those making more than $250,000 a year? >> i think we should draw the line in the sand for milli
millionaires. with all the talk of deficit are we going to hold up taxes for all of america just for the millionaires? that's where we should draw the line. our deficit is serious. anybody who believes the small tax differential for militaries will make a big difference on job creation hasn't been paying attention. there is many things we can do, much more stimulated to the economy than taking care of the millionaires. we have done a net tax cut of $300 billion in the last 18 months focussed on the middle class and small businesses and that's where we need to keep the focus. >> chris: let me make sure real quickly, i understand what you're saying is you would back off the idea of making the cutoff point of $250,000. you say extend the bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $1 million a year? >> that's what i think is the right approach. that's the approach i'm going to be working for. i have can't speak for the rest of my caucus and i can't speak for the president of the united states.
i think it's ridiculous with the deficit looming that we could actually be held hostage, the middle class could be held hostage by trying to get tax cut cans to families like mine and others that the last thing in the world the 3% differential will mean is more jobs. >> chris: senator graham? >> i'm not going to vote to increase taxes on anybody in america. millionaires included. we're in a very weak economy. if you want to make it weaker, raise taxes on anybody is a bad idea. there will be bipartisan support in the lame duck to extent all the tax cut for two or three years and i think the vote will be had before the end of the year. if the president doesn't support that, he is running a risk of making the economy weaker at a time where you could make it stronger through bipartisan support, by democrats and republicans to extend all the tax cuts. stop playing class warfare. let's get the economy going. >> chris: all right. meanwhile, the debt commission is going to finish its work this week.
it has a december 1 deadline. few people, senator graham, expect it to get the super majority. 14 out of the 18 votes of the member of the commission to pass anything. does it mean deficit reduction is dead? >> i will say something positive about claire. she has said nice things about me. she works with jeff sessions to reduce spending to 2008 level or freeze it to last year's budget to save $100 billion. i want to applaud her and senator sessions. the commission probably is dead. we're not going to have a national sales tax. no republican is going to vote for that. i will make a challenge on my show to any democrat, particularly my friend claire. let's see if we can do anything about entitlement. the game is entitlement reform. see if we come up with a way to increase the age for people under 55 for social security and medicare persons. let's see if we can get our income levels to save social
security from bankruptcy. that's where the game is at. see the we do something next year from social security to save it from bankruptcy to get away from the partisanship about the rich and the poor. we're all in this together in terms of social security. >> chris: senator mccaskill, would you accept benefit cuts? that was one of the things that the co-shares agree to. would you accept benefit cut and entitlement? >> we need to look at means testing and look for the next generation and the generation following what is the appropriate age for retirement, do we need to tweak that slightly? which is all we need to do, frankly to make social security safe and secure for generations to come. and do we really need to be buying prescription drugs for billionaires in this country with tax dollars? can we afford that? >> there we go. i agree with you. >> can we afford that? i don't know. lindsey, if he is willing to sit down and talk about this, i'll be there and i'll buy the coffee. figure out a way i can go forward that is politically responsible.
>> chris: senator graham, let me ask you -- >> let me say one thing -- >> chris: i'll give you an opportunity to respond. but i want to ask you. >> sure. >> chris: one of the other things because you're talking about what republicans want to see, cuts in spending. but in its report, the debt commission also said let's have a formula, 3 to 1, spending cut to tax increases. and they were willing, they said there have to be revenue increases as part of this deal. would you accept that? >> historically, when we raise taxes the economy slows and we don't get more revenue. when we cut taxes, the economy grows and we maintain the same amount of revenue, generally whether or not we raise or lower taxes. let's keep the taxes low to create jobs. what i say to upper income americans like me, you, claire, why should the government buy our prescription drugs? this is a way for people in the upper income to help country become solvent without raising taxes that
kill jobs. look at my benefit when i retire. i have military and congressional retirement and i'm willing to give up some social security because we can't afford to pay me what is promised. i'm willing to do that and i bet you and claire would be, too. that's a way to help solve the debt problems without raising taxes which kills jobs. >> chris: finally i want to talk -- some say we've been doing this. let's talk pure politics. senator mccaskill, you are up for election in 2012 and i don't have to tell you, republicans say you're one of the most vulnerable democratic senators. you're now touting our independence from president obama, but looking back at your record in the last two years you voted for the stimul stimulus, for healthcare reform and for financial regulation. where is your independence from this president and his agenda? >> i'm opposed to cap-and-trade. i voted against the omnibus and second round of cash for
clunkers. i voted against comprehensive immigration reform. a long list of things i separated. when he was a senator, he and i didn't always vote together. my record of independence stretches back frankly for a long time. i've got to make sure missouriens know about that. and i'm used to being underdog. it's not an uncommon place to be if you're from missouri in elections. i anticipate being underdog in this election. that means i have to work twice as hard, which is okay with me. >> chris: beyond specific issues is there a conceptual area where you think this president is wrong? >> i think there has been not enough focus in terms of job creation, at a point in time -- we did the stimulus and what has been -- by the way, wildly successful, the tarp. look what has happened with general motors. we save made in america for
domestic auto production. we saved thousands of jobs. we saved entire communities. >> chris: my question is where has the president been wrong? >> i think that at the point in time we did those big things, healthcare at that particular time was very difficult, because the american people were just beginning to feel this economic slump. wait a minute, you're arguing about policy that is complicated in healthcare and i'm worry my son just lost his job and moving back in the house and i can't pay for my kid's college. many of those things didn't get the focus they should have at that point in time. >> chris: senator graham, you're safely not up for re-election until 2014. i do want to ask you about the tea party. what role do you think they'll play in the next two years? what do you think of this talk from some to the degree that there are leaders in the tea party, who are now saying let's get into social issues, not just fiscal issues? >> i think every american should be involved in issues
that matter to people. tea party can be helpful. i talked to rand paul and mike lee about adjusting age on entitlement and recalculating benefits and i was very pleased with the reception i had. these are two new members of congress i think are serious about getting our fiscal house in order. if the tea party would get behind adjusting the age for social security and medicare recipients in the future, recalculating benefits, based on income, means test, they would have done the country a great service. from this discussion, the one thing i can tell you is not going to happen is the dream act. she is talking about voting against comprehensive immigration reform. i support it done right. if we bring up the dream act in the lame duck, that is going nowhere. >> chris: senators, we have to leave it there. i said we'd give you a work-out. we did. thank you both for giving us your insight in a number of issues you're facing in washington. enjoy the rest of your holiday weekend.
>> thank you. >> thank you. >> chris: up next, our sunday panel previews the tuesday meeting at the white house between president obama and the newly empowered republicans. will they find a way to get anything done? logistics makes the world work better. ♪ when it's planes in the sky ♪ ♪ for a chain of supply, that's logistics ♪ ♪ when the parts for the line ♪ ♪ come precisely on time ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ a continuous link, that is always in sync ♪ ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ carbon footprint reduced, bottom line gets a boost ♪ ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ with new ways to compete ♪ there'll be cheers on wall street, that's logistics ♪ ♪ when technology knows
♪ right where everything goes, that's logistics ♪ ♪ bells will ring, ring a ding ♪ ♪ ring a ding, ring a ding, that's logistics ♪ ♪ there will be no more stress ♪ ♪ cause you've called ups, that's logistics ♪ that lets business owners handle payroll on the go. or, like adp, you can dream it and do it.
adp lists on nasdaq, the world's most innovative can-do exchange. boss: and now i'll turn it over gecko: ah, thank you, sir. as we all know, geico has been saving people money on rv, camper and trailer insurance... ...as well as motorcycle insurance... gecko: oh...sorry, technical difficulties. boss: uh...what about this? gecko: what's this one do? gecko: um...maybe that one. ♪ dance music boss: ok, let's keep rolling. we're on motorcycle insurance. vo: take fifteen minutes to see how much you can save on motorcycle, rv, and camper insurance.
i've invited the leadership of both parties for the white house for a real and honest discussion, because i believe if we start talking at one another and stop talking with one another we can get a lot done. >> chris: president obama with an optimistic view of the first meeting tuesday with the g.o.p. congressional leaders after the shellacking he took in the mid-term elections. it's time now for our sunday group. bill kristol of "the weekly standard." mara liasson of national public radio. former state department official liz cheney. and fox news political analyst, juan williams. so, they finally agreed on a date. they apparently agreed on the shape of the table. on tuesday, president obama will sit down at the white house with congressional leaders of both parties but
especially with the leaders of the new republican majority in the house and the expanded, the increased republican minority in the senate. bill, how important is this meeting? and what do you expect to come out of it? >> i think it's reasonably important and i think they will agree on a process for resolving the tax issue. it's crazy to go to the new years with taxes going up for everyone. with the expectation that then the congress will have to act retroactively to reduce all or some of the taxes. a crazy way to run economic policies, especially in these times. i imagine they will agree to a series of votes where the democrats get a chance to present their preferred alternative, and the republicans present their alternatives, make tax cuts permanent and they'll agree on a two-three year extension. they won't agree on it on tuesday but they will agree on a process that means by the mid-december they resolve the question of the tax rates. >> chris: what do you make of the fall-back position the we heard from democrats and we heard from claire mccaskill today, we won't make the
cutoff $250,000, we'll make it $1 million? >> i think they can try to bring it to a vote but the republicans won't accept. that we'll extend all current tax rate for two or three years. >> chris: what is the smart play for both sides? they want to show yes, we're ready, eager, willing to compromise or at least at this point make a statement to their base, we're going to fight for the principles? >> i think for the republicans probably this early on, they need to make a statement to their base. i don't know if that is the best thing for the country. think probably compromise is. i think right now before they even come in office, to be seen as compromising or giving away things, especially on taxes, would probably be a mistake. president obama is still reaching out his hand. he played that clip just before. he is still searching for common ground. there isn't very much right now in washington on anything. i think on the tax cuts, there will be a series of votes where each party gets to test its strength, to see if it can get its preferred
plan through. i can't imagine that there are votes for either side top priority. they'll have to compromise in the end. it would be a disaster for those tax rates to go up. i do think the president would be blamed. >> chris: let me follow up on that specifically with you, liz. whether in this meeting or over the course of the next few weeks do you expect, because the obvious compromise would seem to be a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. one thing i didn't get to talk about and i had on my list and we didn't get to it, what about earmarks? >> yeah, i think that the democrats are going to have to compromise on the bush tax cuts. i think it's important to remember we're not talking about tax cuts. those are tax increases now. >> chris: tax increases if the current level lapse. >> expire, yeah. i think that, you know, when you look at the meeting coming up. i actually think it's sort of washington theater. i don't think that there are a lot of american voters outside the beltway watching saying thank goodness they will have a meeting.
i think they want action. i don't think the message of the election was compromise, frankly. the message was we're concerned about the direction that the administration is going in. they want the republicans to stop it. they want the republicans to stop the spending. they elected people who will hopefully return us to an understanding that the private sector has got to be -- >> it would be a compromise for the republicans to agree to a temporary extension. they want to see a permanent extension. >> i agree with more on this. i don't think that you are going to see any kind of a compromise right now. i don't think you should. the republican position have been clear. you do not raise taxes when the economy is struggling, as our economy is right now. i think it would be foolish for the obama administration and the democrats on the hill to demonstrate so quickly they are completely ignoring the message the voters sent last couple of weeks ago. >> chris: juan? >> the best argument for republican perspective has been made by orrin hatch who says if you take away the tax cut for the rich in the country, actually hurts the working class people, because
it acts as a deterrent to economic stimulation. you know what? that is a trickle down argument. if you look at the stimulus effect of giving money to the very rich it's negligible and it comes at a high cost in terms of adding money to the deficit, a problem for the country. if you think about it, president obama is on the defensive and he's present by the independent voters to show he can act in bipartisan manner. this is a real opportunity for republicans to put the pressure on obama but they have to be willing to compromise to some extent. the idea of cutting it off at a million is fine idea but i don't think republicans have any incentive to do anything other than hammer the table and incyst they get what they -- inist they get what they want like children. that's what they do.
>> you ignore that people paying income taxes at the high level are the small businesses and that's where we get job creation. it's nice for the rhetoric for the democrats to say the republicans are trying to help the wealthy but it ignores how many -- >> it's just not true. [ overtalk ] >> it's not true. >> how many small business owners -- >> chris: one at a time. >> how many small business people do you know making more than $250,000 a year or make $1 million a year? >> it's a significant proportion of the taxpayers who file at that level are, in fact, small businesses. when you increase the tax burden on the small businesses you discourage them from hiring. what we've learned over the last 19, 20 months now the obama administration is that you cannot grow this economy, you can't stimulate the economy through government -- >> chris: let me just say, i hope that the meeting with the white house goes better than this meeting is going today between the two of you. i want to turn to the other big subject domestically this week. it hasn't gotten much attention but it will. that is that the debt commission has its deadline
on wednesday, december 1. it goes out of business. do you expect them to get the super-majority, 14 of the 18 members which would have to be a bipartisan agreement to issue any set of recommendations and if they don't, what does it mean for the deficit reduction? >> i'm not sure they can get the votes, but the chairman released the sense of where they need to go on entitlement and taxes and have had significant effect. they think the top rate of 23% is optimal for growth. that's below the current tax rate. entitlement, they, part of the commission, simpson and bowles and they erased medicare reform like paul ryan's map. the budget commission, i was
skeptic about that laid groundwork for good movement in the next few years over entitlement and taxes. >> something about the politics about this, everything who didn't like what they proposed, had an implicit challenge. okay. come up with a plan of your own. there are now dozens of plans coming out. when you test the specific proposals in the polls, all of them are unpopular. everybody wants deficit cut but if you want retirement age increased or spending cuts, everybody says no. the challenge for both party for both parties, president and republicans, figure out who can make argument for growth and competitiveness as a vehicle for reducing the deficit, not just the green eye shade raising taxes, cutting spending. who can really put it in a real vision for getting the economy growing again? that is the challenge. otherwise, you can't sell the specific proposals. that's why they're not political viable. though they're interesting. >> getting alice rivland, respected policy expert to
sign on to paul ryan medicare reform is -- >> why, she doesn't vouch for medicare under 55? >> she moves it to a defined benefit. that's pretty -- [ overtalk ] >> this gives elegitimacy to the notion you can't just take the position to let medicare go as it's going. leave entitlement alone. >> chris: the idea here, it's always the idea if you want a compromise there has to be serious spending cut even in entitlement. there is also going to be increased revenue. do you think it's a barga bargain -- i don't ask you to speak for democrats. republicans, talking about the spending tax 3-to-1. >> income tax drops, though. >> chris: is that acceptable? >> neither you nor i have votes to know goshate but you have to give the chairmen credit, though i don't believe everything they
propose but credit for cutting through the b.s., frankly and put forward a proposal. they address the highest corporate tax level, which is a terrific step as well. something else that is interesting going on here. if you look at what marco rubio did in florida. rubio ran on the need for entitlement reform, which is something we haven't seen in american politics. >> chris: which is tough to do in florida. >> he didn't just win florida but he won the senior vote. the people understand country is facing a crisis. >> chris: juan, 30 seconds. >> that's right. i was impressed somehow seniors, not only in florida but across the country say we need to ereduce the size of the deficit in this country and a central part of the operation is slowing down the growth of entitlement. i thought what bowles and what simpson did is terrific. the reaction from democrats is less than enthusiastic because they see it as rewarding the rich and punishing the poor. you have to have a long-term
view that mara was speaking about. this is good for america, reduces the deficit and grows the economy. >> chris: we have to take a break here. when we come back, north korea flexes the military might. our panel discusses that. still, another document dump from wikileaks. because of one word, imagination and reality have merged. because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of one word, america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word... is how. that one word...
who put it all on the line to build and run their own businesses. at at&t, we know something about that. our company started out in a small lab, with not much more than a dream. and today, we know it's small businesses that can create the jobs america needs. that's why at&t is investing billions to upgrade and build out our wired and wireless networks. making them faster, smarter, and more secure. connecting small businesses to markets across the country, and around the world. we invest now, because we know it will pay off... with new jobs, new growth, from a new generation, putting their belief in the future on the line. now is the time for investment and innovation. the future is waiting. and the future has always the future is waiting. and the future has always been our business. at&t.
north korea. we have want to make sure that all the parties in the region recognize that this is a serious and ongoing threat that has to be dealt with. >> chris: president obama responding to the latest act of north korean aggression against south korea. and we're back now with the panel. as i discussed with the senators, u.s. and south korea have begun naval exercises, war games, in the yellow sea, off the coast of north korea and china. ignoring protests from those countries. bill, how serious is this situation there? are we overstating it? and what can the u.s. do about it? >> it's pretty serious. north korea has killed south koreans in unprovoked attack. they killed other south koreans eight months ago, the attack on the ship. and they're testing nuclear weapons. the regime is unstable and andty -- tyrannical. president obama didn't seem to put his heart in it saying
with we're going to rally international community to put pressure. fine, but we need to look at them making the transition. it's not easy for kim jong il and his son, we should do everything we can to bring down the regime and nuclear weapon problem and reignite the two koreas. >> chris: mara, that is easier said than done. >> i can't do it. all i can do is talk here. >> north korea is a difficult problem because nobody understands what is going on there, no internal pressure, no kind of -- there is nothing there and china doesn't want to cooperate right now. what china wants is of course, stability. they don't want north korea to implode and send millions of people over there. they aren't putting much of a damper on it. it's unclear what the chinese think is the west way to resolve this, but north korea seems determine to be a nuclear power and to provoke a real confrontation. >> chris: i'm going to switch subjects on you, although if you want to talk about north korea, i'm sure you will go ahead and do so.
we are waiting and we expect in the next 24 hours wikileaks will have another leak of ten of thousands, perhaps more than 200,000 classified state department documents, files, cables, et cetera. you used to work in the state department in the last administration. is this a matter of being embarrassing or could it be damaging? >> i think what we've seen from the statements about it, it could be damaging. we know the last dump of the wikileaks docs put people's lives ate risk, people we have been working with in afghanistan and iraq. i think once again, the governor of iceland ought to shut down the website and they ought to stop allowing this stuff to come out of the website in iceland and the administration ought to focus very much on prosecuting those responsible. back on north korea for a second, i do think what we have seen there is an example of how provocative american weakness can be.
it is a policy of weakness that expanded back in the bush administration, in the last years of the bush administration. we've seen time and time again, north korea if we test a nuclear weapon, there are no consequences. they build reactor and there is no consequences. they've learned the belligerence, in fact, often times yields from us capitulation and concessions. it's time for us to put them back on the terrorist list and time for to us be direct with china and say if you really do want to be the world pow they're you aspire to be, you've got to step up to the plate here. you can't just benefit from the open economic system in the united states, from the open economies around the world. if you really do view yourself as a world power and want the rest of the world to you view you that way -- >> are we saying that? >> i don't think we are. we tiptoe around the chinese. look at what happened last july when we said we'd have joint military exercises with the south koreans. chinese objected and said
don't do it in the yellow sea. we didn't. >> chris: but this time we did do it in the yellow sea. >> that's a good step but the message needs to be stronger than it has been. it's not pleading with the chinese to help us. it's about saying to them if you don't step up to the plate you'll end up with nuclear proliferation throughout your neighborhood. that's not the way the world power -- >> chris: is that the card to play, south koreans, maybe you should begin your nuclear program, japan? >> no, i don't think we should say it to those countries but we should be clear to chinese if they don't step up to the plate and get the north koreans -- they're the north korean's largest trading partner and the closer ally. if they don't engage directly in getting the north koreans to stop what they're doing, the result will be a nuclear proliferation in that neighborhood. >> chris: juan, i put a buffet table of treats in front of you. go ahead. >> thank you for that holiday invitation. >> chris: there you go. >> i must say it sounds like warmonger. we're already engaged in two wars, afghanistan, iraq. we have tensions in the middle east. and say let's go to war with
china? this is madness. >> wait a minute -- >> look, if you think we're not being direct, if we're not engaged and working in the territory that china has already said belongs to them, that those are their waters and we're doing it illegally -- you can't say we're not being tough. if you want to embarrass the chinese and force them to a position they feel like they are losing faith and they have no option to appear to be simply abiding by the u.s. dictates, that's a losing hand, liz. a losing hand. >> juan, what we've been doing -- >> chris: okay. wait. wait. let liz talk. >> sorry. >> do you think what we've been doing for the last five years is working? what we've been saying is we're going to offer carrots to north koreans, plead with them and ignore evidence they have enrichment program going on which we learn this week they do have -- >> we didn't even know about the uranium. the chinese now said let's have more six party talks. the u.s. government, the
obama administration has refused those talks. they don't want more talks. they're being clear and hard-lined. it doesn't seem to me that your argument that there is softness going on here is in play at all. what is going on we need to find a way to resolve the issue and administration, contrary to what bill said, has been demonstrating admirable restraint and not warmongering to say go in there and start a fight. >> i'm for doing whatever you do for covert action and -- >> do you think it's not on -- >> more power to them. just as iran, they have a nuclear program and i'm -- for iran, what will do more good? all the talks we've had or subverting the nuclear program? in north korea, what does the most good, we talk about fissure. i'm not calling for war -- >> chris: let me ask you, please. what makes you think if we brought down that regime, the next regime would be better? >> it couldn't worse.
it couldn't be worse. reunification on korean peninsula and maybe the china wa wants to keep them up on the border. it could be unified korea and better. >> koreans want to do it in a manageable way, not create chaos. >> the chaos of the refugee fleeing across the border for freedom is chaos to welcome as opposed to the current situation. >> the extent our allies in the region, japanese, and the extent they understand we're committed to matching our rhetoric with action will make us all much more safe and secure. >> chris: thank you, panel. see you all next week. don't forget to check out pam plus where our group -- panel plus where the group picks up with the discussion on the website foxnewssunday.com. we promise we'll post the video before noon eastern time. up next, our power player of the week.
to give our war fighters every advantage. ♪ [ man ] to deliver technologies that anticipate the future, today. ♪ and help protect america, everywhere. from the battle space to cyberspace. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together. to give our best, for america's best. that's why we're here. ♪
>> chris: now that thanksgiving has passed, we're officially in the christmas shopping season. if you are thinking of getting a bauble for your loved one, we have something as we first reported last year to put you in the right spirit. here is our power player of the week. ♪ >> it's a beautiful thing to look at. the history is both mysterious and intriguing. >> chris: jeffrey post is curator of the gem and mineral collection at the smithsonian museum of natural history and he is talking about the hope diamond. >> blue diamonds have always been very rare. so it's hard to lose a blue diamond in history. >> chris: what a history it's had. 1600s, the french her chant tabrenaut sold it to the
king. >> it's known as the blue diamond of the realm is a feature gem stone. >> chris: in the french revolution, it was stolen. according to some accounts ended up in the collection of king george iv of england. by 1839, british banker henry phillip hope owned it and gave it his name. only now the 69-karat diamond was 45.5 karats. >> we believed it ended up in london and there it was recut in order to disguise the diamond so it could be resold. >> chris: that's not just a guess. the smithsonian did computer modelling to show the hope diamond fits perfectly inside the french blue, which fits inside tabernaut original gem. in 1912 famed jeweller pierre cartier sold it to social east evelyn walsh mcclain.
there is a curse that went with it. >> it's hard to find a picture of her after she purchased the diamond where she's not wearing the diamond. >> chris: they donated the hope diamond to the museum in 1958. where it now sits in an impregnable glass fall, except for when jeff post took it out and gave us an extraordinary look at it. >> well, chris, here is the hope diamond. it's not often we have a chance to introduce someone as closely as we are here. >> chris: may i -- >> go ahead. >> chris: ahh, the hope diamond. it is only one inch in diameter but it's been an object of fascination for centuries. the museum is celebrating 50 years of the diamond by displaying it naked without its setting. then people were to vote on the internet for a new setting it would be displayed in. but new one would see it like this. speaking technically, how good a diamond is it? >> it is a diamond with great clarity, it is a near
flawless stone. the combination of the size, the color, the clarity of it make it an unmatched diamond. it's one of a kind. >> if you wanted to sell it -- >> if there is anything in the world that one could point to and say it's priceless, you know, take the u.s. treasurer or bigger, the u.s. debt and try to take that money and go out and buy another diamond like this one, you literally could not do it. there is not one out there anywhere. >> chris: hope diamond is back on display at the smithsonian in its new setting, called "embracing hope." complete with a ribbon of 340 diamonds. but i will always remember holding it in my hand. up next, we hear from you. ah, it's stinging a little bit more than usual! yeah, you'll get used to it.
the longer you keep your high mileage car, the more it pays you back. get castrol gtx high mileage. it helps engines last longer by fighting the main causes of engine failure. i think a dime went up my nose. yeah, it happens. don't change your car. change your oil to castrol gtx high mileage. its more than just oil. it's liquid engineering. how new york city manages i.t. or, like bmc software, you can dream it and do it. bmc lists on nasdaq, the world's most innovative can-do exchange.
>> chris: time now for comments you posted to the blog wallace watch. first about secretary of state hillary clinton's comment last week, she doesn't plan to run for office ever again. fred shane doesn't buy her flat statement -- >> chris: and andy smith had this to say about texas governor perry's comments about social security -- >> chris: please keep your comments coming. find us at foxnewssunday.com. that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." captioned by closed captioning services, inc